Replies

No - the slave ships didn’t go first to the north. There were a number of different triangular trade routes. Some ships went from England, some from the colonies.

The ships came from Africa and delivered slaves to the islands to work the sugar plantations. The great majority of the slaves went to the islands. A fraction of them came to the colonies. They were the lucky ones. They weren’t dying of malaria in the islands and they weren’t being killed in Africa where tribes were killing and enslaving each other for centuries.

Of the slaves coming to the colonies we hear all the time that they went to the south. However many slaves were shipped to the northern colonies. Even in the 1630’s slaves were coming to Massachusetts directly from Africa. Some were coming from the Islands in exchange for Indians captured and enslaved by the colonists. Northerners don’t want you do know about how they traded the Indians for the blacks.

When you visit Boston and go to Quincy Market and Faneuil Hall - that’s where the slaves were auctioned. There were thousands of slaves up north.

No - the slave ships didn’t go first to the north. There were a number of different triangular trade routes. Some ships went from England, some from the colonies.

Why are we talking about slavery? That only has an indirect influence on what happened. The primary reason the Union started the war was to protect their cash cow of monopolized trade from Europe.

I've been looking at the numbers, and the truth appears to be that is Charleston became a free port, it would wipe out billions of dollars worth of Trade with New England.

They had jiggered all the laws to favor New England ships, ports, warehousing, insurance, packet shipping, and everything else. The amount of trade that was being MONOPOLIZED by New York is readily apparent in this map that some Anti-Confederate organization put together.

Unfortunately for them, it proves the very opposite of what they intended it to prove when they created it.

New York was taking a huge cut of *ALL* trade coming into the United States. A open port at Charleston would have wreaked financial havoc on the Robber Barons of New England.

The war was initiated to save the financial interests of New England. The "Slavery" thing was just propaganda for the rubes.

And to emphasize my previous point, here are some quotes from the Chicago Daily Times. December 10, 1860

“In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system or that of a tariff for revenue and these results would likely follow.”
“In the enforcement of the revenue laws the forts [like Fort Sumter] are of primary importance. Their guns cover just so much ground as is necessary to enable the United States to enforce their laws. Those forts the United States must maintain. It is not a question of coercing South Carolina, but enforcing the revenue laws. The practical point, either way, is whether the revenue laws of the United States shall or shall not be enforced at those three Ports, Charleston, Beaufort and Georgetown, or whether they shall or shall not be made free ports, open to the commerce of the world, with no other restriction upon it than South Carolina shall see proper to impose. Forts are to be used to enforce the revenue laws…not to conquer a State.”

The Union launched the war to protect their money stream. they used "Slavery" as a propaganda tool to recruit and then later to justify the evil thing that they had done.

We have been lied to all these years. The deeper I dig, the more lies I find.

The Civil War was a war over *MONEY*, not Slavery. The Union was perfectly content to allow slavery to continue so long as they were making their cut of money off of it.